RAJINDER KUMAR vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 33 of 2002 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner obtained loan of Rs.85,000/- from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 on 7.7.2000, and purchased three buffaloes @ Rs.25,000/- each. Complainant got all the three buffaloes insured from the OP No. 1/Respondent No.1. One of the insured buffaloes suddenly fell ill and died on 24.12.2000 at about 3.30 P.M. Post mortem was conducted on 25.12.2000, and intimation was given to OPs on the same day. Claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by OP. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP No. 1, filed complaint before the District Forum. OP No. 1 resisted claim and submitted that complainant did not give intimation to OP No.1 immediately after the death of buffalo and no opportunity was afforded to the OP to inspect the carcass of the buffalo, which is in violation of Clause 7 of the Insurance Policy. It was further alleged that intimation of death of buffalo was received in OP ''s office on 9.1.2001, and independent investigator appointed by OP opined in his report dated 17.1.2001 that buffalo, which had died was not insured one and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 admitted grant of loan and further submitted that intimation regarding death received by OP No. 2 was forwarded to OP No.1. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 to pay Rs.25,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest. OP No.1/Respondent No. 1 filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide its impugned order set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint, as intimation was given by the complainant to OP No. 1 in time, even then, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference and revision petition be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 2 submitted that no relief has been granted by Fora below against him; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that, as per allegation of the complainant, buffalo died on 24.12.2000 and post mortem was conducted on 25.12.2000. As per Clause 7 of the Insurance Policy, it was obligatory on the part of insured to give immediate intimation of death of buffalo to the office of the Company, which had issued the policy and further, provide the Insurance Company all opportunity of inspecting the carcass until at least the expiration of 24 hours after such notice to the Company. Complainant failed to prove any written intimation to the Insurance Company immediately after the death of buffalo. As per record, intimation dated 29.12.2000 sent by the complainant reached the office of the respondent on 9.1.2001, whereas body of the buffalo must have been disposed of after post mortem on 25.12.2000 and admittedly, there was no opportunity with the Insurance Company to inspect the carcass before its disposal. Thus, there was clear violation of Clause No. 7 of the Insurance Policy and learned State Commission has not committed any error in passing impugned order and setting aside order of District Forum allowing complaint. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per Investigator ''s report, Buffalo which died was not insured one. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per post mortem report, the deceased buffalo contained Tag No. 1685, which was insured one. Petitioner has not filed affidavit of doctor conducting post mortem and in such circumstances, it is not proved beyond doubt that buffalo which died was insured one, as OP/respondent had no opportunity to verify this fact.

IN the light of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.